Up to the publication of this report, the project staff continued to collect
data and information concerning FTAs/FTCs and outstanding warrants across the
United States, and continued to look for strategies that local jurisdictions
have been using to locate absconders and defaulters. We have found it difficult
to locate persons knowledgeable in the specific subject matter; that is, whether
outstanding warrants are a problem with individuals charged with DWI offenses,
mainly because data were not available to make such a determination.

CONCLUSIONS

As discussed throughout this report, there are a number of
variables which must be taken into account when determining the
nature and extent of outstanding DWI warrants. Based on this
study and other recent related traffic safety projects, the
authors believe there is a substantial problem with outstanding
warrants for DWI offenses in a majority of jurisdictions. The
difficulty remains in quantifying the problem due to the limited
availability and/or accessibility of accurate and complete data.
Basically, we found that many sites were not able to easily
provide data and could not assess how large a problem may (or may
not) exist with FTA and/or FTC behavior. Thus, they were unlikely
to be effectively dealing with the issue.

The data provided was often in summarized form; thus, the
accuracy or reliability of the information could not be
independently verified. Databases were often disjointed, meaning
that many were incompatible. This made it difficult, and in most
cases impossible, to link pertinent information. Sometimes,
records on outstanding warrants are purged from the database when
the person contacts the courts, or is arrested. In these cases,
it is difficult to determine the true number of FTAs/FTCs and the
length of time the majority of warrants are outstanding. Many of
the sites report problems with FTCs after the case has been
adjudicated, when those convicted of DWI offenses are not
properly monitored to insure that they comply with court-ordered
sanctions. In addition, fear of recognition and bad publicity
hindered our attempts to locate information on outstanding
warrants. It is understandable that authorities in jurisdictions
would have a concern that the subject errant behavior may
increase if the problem is made public. However, it is difficult
to achieve a solution to a problem that has not been properly
identified.

We have talked with individuals in each of the study sites
about programs and methods which have been implemented to deal
with persons who fail to appear at some point during the
adjudication process and/or fail to comply with court-ordered
sanctions. In most instances, warrants are issued, but often law
enforcement agencies have limited personnel and budgets, which
restrict the search for defaulters. And, most often, warrant
squads give priority to the search for persons accused of
more serious offenses than DWI charges. We were told
that locating persons charged with violent crimes typically
require the most efforts by law enforcement officers, which
leaves little or no time or resources for seeking DWI absconders
and defaulters. Additionally, outstanding warrants for failure to
comply with sanctions, usually meaning non-payment of fines, have
resulted in such a large backlog of outstanding warrants that
alternative solutions are now being explored in some areas. Since
these fines owed would otherwise not be paid, two alternatives
are to send out a warrant squad specifically targeting those
individuals owing large amounts and then paying for the squad
with those funds, or privatizing the process by handing those
cases over to collection agencies.

Open dialogue and cooperation between the adjudication,
correction, and particularly important, the law enforcement
agencies involved are paramount to constructing a public
safety network, thereby closing the loopholes that DWI
offenders can slip through when they chose to abscond. Also,
working with neighboring jurisdictions on issues such as
cross-checking records of individuals in custody to assist in
locating persons wanted in one jurisdiction who are already in
custody in another jurisdiction, can prove mutually beneficial.
And, finally, the cooperation of multiple jurisdictions can deal
with more difficult issues such as warrants issued with a
distance radius specifying how far authorities may travel to
apprehend absconders.

Increasingly, the media have played larger roles in
publicizing the problem of outstanding warrants. Many times, the
situation revolves around DWI offenses. Usually, the media
reports are fueled by outrage that a death was caused by an
individual wanted on outstanding warrants for previous DWI
offenses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Each and every jurisdiction is unique in the laws of the
jurisdiction; the number and types of agencies involved in
apprehension, adjudication, reparation and rehabilitation of DWI
offenders; and the policies and procedures of those agencies. It
is understood that cost factors, which require funding sources,
are paramount to dealing with this pervasive problem of offenders
failing to appear and/or comply. Local agencies can best identify
and either provide for these issues or seek outside funding.
Therefore, each jurisdiction desiring to make a determination as
to how large a problem exists regarding outstanding DWI warrants,
must examine the local system and the supporting agencies and,
most importantly, the data which are recorded by agencies across
the jurisdiction.

The following flowchart provides an example of a process that
could be undertaken locally to determine the nature and extent of
outstanding DWI warrants. The purpose of the flowchart is to
highlight the complexities in attempting to identify the problem.
Each of the input and decision points on Figure 39 are
simplified statements of what may be an entire process. For
example, identifying those offenders who have failed to appear,
might involve searching a database maintained by a court, while
the same person may have also failed to comply (e.g., payment of
a fine) and may be identified by searching probation records and
clerk of court records. Determining which are separate cases and
which pertain to the same offense could also be difficult if at
least two different variables regarding personal identifying
information and case information are not recorded by the
different agencies' databases. If the same information is
captured, then matching records is a possibility, if recorded in
similar formats in compatible databases. Otherwise, the matching
process becomes more complex.

The input and decision points on Figure 39 are
discussed in detail under the bullets following the flowchart,
which also include our recommendations. The dotted lines in the
flowchart designate ancillary projects to be undertaken as time
and resources allow, but on which we have not elaborated. Thus,
we recommend that local jurisdictions:

Enlist cooperation from all system participants (i.e., LEAs, courts, probation
agencies, legislators) to identify problems with outstanding warrants by looking
at available and potential resources, and identifying system deficiencies
and fixes. It may be that changes in legislation are necessary to provide
additional funds, divert funds, or eliminate the issuance of warrants for
specific FTC offenses such as non-payment of fines. Possible alternative solutions
may be explored, such as with non-payment of fines where a jurisdiction may
elect to hand over records to a private collections agency.

Due to the possibility of major changes being implemented, it is best, early
in the planning process, to have the cooperation of all system agencies involved.

Examine existing available information (e.g., arrest databases compiled
by law enforcement agencies, adjudication information recorded by the courts,
information on absconders and defaulters provided by courts and probation
departments and private treatment agencies, driver license records compiled
by state DMVs) to determine if links through common data are possible (e.g.,
date of birth, driver license number); examine how complete, accurate, and
up-to-date the informational systems are; and determine how duplication of
recording efforts can be minimized or eliminated.

Determine the types of warrants that are outstanding (e.g., FTA, FTC, order-ins,
wants) and determine whether the reason(s) for the issuance of the warrants
are available. Also, determine whether multiple warrants are issued for multiple
failures to act for the same DWI offense or whether these are combined on
one warrant.

Identify the numbers of recent and past warrants issued for DWI-related
offenses. Most likely, the numbers of outstanding warrants will be surprisingly
high. Determine the reasons for issuing the warrants, and identify those individuals
with multiple warrants that are outstanding. Calculate the amounts due for
fines owed to see if there is monetary (in addition to legal/moral) justification
for locating these individuals.

A statewide data/record system that enables local data system links would
provide the ideal avenue to queries by legal system agencies (i.e., enforcement,
adjudication, punitive, rehabilitation and probation agencies). However, recognizing
the years required to plan, obtain funding, set up and implement such a data/record
system if one is currently not operational, this approach may not be immediately
feasible. If a statewide information system is not available, we would suggest
implementation of a localized data system, accessible to all components of
a legal system (i.e., enforcement, adjudication, punitive, rehabilitation
and probation agencies), to track arrestees as they proceed through the adjudication
process and through the sanctioning and punitive period. This database should
be case specific and should include all warrant information and actions taken
regarding each individual. The data should be retained because the information
can pinpoint system deficiencies. We are not necessarily implying a large,
expensive system. Small jurisdictions may, fairly inexpensively, set up a
simple database in a software spreadsheet package. Local and regional databases
will allow more detailed data analyses, which will benefit the jurisdiction,
than is available from large systems such as the FBI's NCIC (National Crime
Information Center) database.

Transfer or re-enter all pertinent information into the local system and
also enter appropriate warrants into the NCIC database. One agency should
have primary responsibility for maintaining the database, but the database
should allow for multiple authorized users from the various agencies to input
and retrieve data.

Provide incentives (funding) to law enforcement agencies to seek absconders
and defaulters. As a focus group attendee stated, The bottom line is
dollars. If the department (LEA) got money for every DWI warrant they picked
up, they'd be scouring the area for them. As for this strategy, it is
important to find out how much fine money is owed. The amount may provide
the impetus to locate defaulters and absconders. Legal steps may have to be
taken to transfer some of the owed monies into funds to reimburse LEAs or
pay for special warrant squads.

Keep up with new warrants issued - then attempt to serve older warrants.

Encourage courts to take action on FTAs and FTCs and not create a special
category which serves to make the court look better at the expense of dealing
with the problem.

In addition to the points outlined in the flowchart, we would add the following
recommendations:

If employee shortages among LEAs are a problem, whenever possible, have
cadets, interns, community volunteers, and auxiliary personnel assist with
functions such as keeping databases up-to-date, and assisting with organizing
any special enforcement stings.

Seek methods, other than warrants, to deal with defaulters of minor traffic
infractions and/or non-payment of fines. These methods might include use of
a private collection agency and/or driver license sanctions. Set bonds high
enough to insure future court appearances.

Create additional fees and/or sources of funding to deal with the associated
costs incurred by serving warrants, extradition costs, and any other related
costs. If necessary, pass new legislation to allow funds to cover these costs.

Use publicity wisely. While the media usually appear willing and able to
assist law enforcement agencies, the safety of officers is paramount. Publicizing
that law enforcement officers are seeking defaulters and absconders alerts
dangerous individuals and gives them time to plan and prepare for the arrival
of officers, or allows them time to flee. However, if this information is
publicized, the general public may provide information concerning the whereabouts
of individuals to police. Use public information and education campaigns to
appeal to society. Recommend that employers act responsibly by encouraging
employees to meet any court-ordered obligations.

The problem of outstanding warrants appears to be widespread.
Currently, the most effective means of handling the problem
appear to come from local jurisdictions independently finding
solutions. The time has come to move this issue to the forefront
of the public safety agenda. The concern of traffic safety
professionals across the entire system should be to properly
identify any problem within local jurisdictions and to not allow
DWI cases to be pushed to the bottom of the outstanding warrant
list, such has been happening. Local agencies should be
encouraged to take active measures toward dealing with this issue
and should be provided as much assistance as possible with
adequate funding.

This study has focused on an area that previously has been given very little
scrutiny, and the lack of attention is disturbing. The number of outstanding
DWI warrants nationwide is not known, but our findings in several jurisdictions
at the state and local levels suggest a figure of several million or more. This
means untold numbers of absconders and defaulters are using a large loophole
in the adjudication and sanctioning processes in jurisdictions across the country.
It certainly seems that many offenders who continue to drive while intoxicated
or under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, simply have ignored the system,
thereby rendering it less effective in its efforts to safeguard the public.
This leaves the door open for abuses and recurring instances of illegal behavior,
which are dangerous to everyone on the roadways.